Swagger: Search APIs and Domains

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by naming the endpoint and the metadata retrieved, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination quirks, or return-format behavior beyond the parameter list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is strong and front-loaded, but the large parameter section duplicates the schema descriptions exactly. Since the structured schema already contains all 9 parameter definitions, most of the description body adds no new information and could be significantly shortened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It adds the useful context of the /specs endpoint and the metadata fields returned, leaving no critical selection or calling information missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description repeats those parameter descriptions verbatim rather than adding new meaning about formats, interdependencies, or edge cases, so it stays at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action verb ('Search'), names the exact resource ('APIs and Domains in SwaggerHub Registry'), and cites the underlying '/specs endpoint'. It also enumerates returned metadata such as owner, name, description, summary, version, and specification, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling get/list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: this is the registry search tool for APIs and domains, backed by the /specs endpoint, with many filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but its scope is clear enough that an agent can select it confidently.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.